From the TSFM Manifesto š
A spectre is haunting Scottish Football ā the spectre of Sporting Integrity. All the powers of the old firms have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Billy and Dan, Blazer and Cassock, Record and Sun, Balance Sheet and P&L.
Where is the football fan in opposition to these that has not been decried as a “sporting integrity bampot” by his opponents in power?Two things result from this fact:
I. Sporting Integrity is already widely acknowledged to be itself a power for good.
II. It is high time that Lovers of Sport should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Sporting Integrity with a manifesto of fair play.
To this end, Lovers of Sport of various partisanship have assembled on TSFM and sketched their manifesto, to be published on tsfm.scot.
Those who love sport though are challenged not just by the taunts of the monosyllabic automatons in the MSM, but by the owners of our football clubs who have displayed an almost total disregard to our wish to have a fair competition played out in the spirit of friendly rivalry. In fact the clubs, who speak those fine words, are not nearly as outraged as we are by the damage done to the integrity of the sport in the past few years .
In fact the term Sporting Integrity has become, since the latter stages of the Rangers era, a term ofĀ abuse; a mocking soubriquet attached to those who want sport to be just that – sport.
Sporting integrity now lives in the same media pigeon-hole as words like Islam, left-wing, militant, Muslim – and a host of others; words which are threats to the established order now set up as in-jokes, in order to reduce the effectiveness of the idea.
In fact, a new terminology has evolved in the reporting of football by both club officials and The Succulent Lamb Chapel alike;
“.. Sporting Integrity but …”.
For example
“We all want sporting integrity, but finance is more important”
Says who exactly?
Stated in such a matter of fact way that the obvious question is headed off at the pass, it is sometimes difficult to re-frame the discussion – perhaps because crayon is so hard to erase?
This is the backdrop to The Scottish Football Monitor and the world in which we live. Often the levels of scrutiny employed by our contributors are far in excess of any scrutiny employed by the MSM. Indeed our ideas and theories are regularly plagiarised by those very same lazy journalists who lurk here, and cherry-pick material to suit their own agendas; regularly claiming exclusives for stories that TSFM and RTC before us had placed in the public domain weeks earlier.
This was going to lead into a discourse about the love of money versus the love of sport – of how the sacred cows of acquisitiveness, gate- retention and turnstile spinning is far more important to the heads of our football clubs (the Billys, Dans and Blazers of the intro) than maintaining the traditions of our sport.
However events of Friday 14th November have given me cause to leave that for another day. The biggest squirrel of all in this sorry saga has always been the sleight of hand employed instil a siege mentality in the Rangers fans. The press have time and again assisted people (with no love of football in general or Rangers in particular) to enrich themselves – legally or otherwise – and feed on the loyalty of Rangers fans.
A matter for Rangers fans may also be the identity of some of those who had their trust, butĀ who also assisted the Whytes and Greens by their public statements of support.
Our contention has been that rules have been bent twisted or broken to accommodate those people, the real enemies of the Rangers fans – and fans everywhere.
Through our collective research and group-analysis of events, we have also wondered out loud about the legality of many aspects of the operating style of some of the main playersĀ in the affair. That suspicion has been shared most notably by Mark Daly and Alex Thompson, but crucially now appears to be shared by Law Enforcement.
I confess I am fed up with the self-styled “bampot” epithet. For the avoidance of doubt, the “bampots” in this affair are those who have greater resources than us, and access to the truth, but who have lacked either the will orĀ theĀ courage or the imagination to follow it through.
We are anything but bampots. Rather, weĀ have demonstrated that the wisdom of the crowd is more effective by far than any remnants of wisdom in the press.
I have no doubt that the police investigation into this matter is proceeding in spite of great opposition in the MSM and the Scottish Football Authorities – all of whom conspired to expose Rangers to the custodianship of those for whom football is a foreign language.
I have no doubt that the constant exposition of wrong-doing on this blog, in particular the questions we have constantly raised, and anomalies we have pointed out, has assisted and enabled the law enforcement agencies in this process.
If we are to be consistent in this, our enabling of the authorities, we MUST show restraint at all times as this process is followed through. People who are charged with a crime deserve to be given a fair trial in the absence of rumour or innuendo. We must also, if we are to continue as the spectre which haunts the avaricious – and the real bampots – be seen to be better than they, and give them no cause to accuse us of irresponsibility.
This affair has now evolved way beyond one club gaining unfair advantage over others. For all the understandable Schadenfreude of many among us, the real enemy is not Rangers, it is about those who enabled and continue to enable the farce at Ibrox.
This is now about systematic cheating at the heart of the Scottish game (in the name of cash and in spite of lip service to sporting integrity), and how the greed of a bunch of ethically challenged officials allowed another group of ethically challenged businessmenĀ free rein to enrich themselves at the expense of the fans.
Whether laws were broken or not, theĀ players at Rangers have come and gone and are variables, but the malignant constant at the SFA and SPFL are still there. Last night, even after the news that four men had been arrested in connection with the takeover at Ibrox in 2011, they were gathered together at Celtic Park with their Irish counterparts, tucking into succulent lamb (perhaps) and fine wines, doing someĀ back slapping, makingĀ jokes about the vulgarities of their fans, bragging about the ST money they have banked.
The revolution won’t be over until they are gone, and if they remain, it is Scottish Football that will be over.
John Clark says:
November 19, 2014 at 11:42 pm
Exactly
iceman63 says:
November 19, 2014 at 10:48 pm
“The entire saga is a damning indictment of Scottish society and the moral vacuum which exists at the core of all of its key institutions.”
———————————
I think about now might be the time for feeling sorry for Rangers fans. Not that they haven’t been culpable for their clubs woes; because they have. Too many of them have sucked up the hype and failed to recognise the bigger picture. They have been duped and have in many ways been willing accomplices in the deceit. Right about now, en masse, they need to be coming to their senses.
If a new incarnation of Rangers is to be brought into existence then perhaps it will be an opportunity to right some of the wrongs that have been observed. It might be a chance to create a new narrative that recognises that the footballing authorities and media have been enablers of such a catastrophe. It might be argued that motives were well meant but the time for equivocation is passed. There needs to be new realisations and an understanding that there is a world beyond Rangers that is inhabited by the rest of Scottish football. What has happened to Rangers might conceivably happen to any football club. However Rangers took the decisions they made and must accept the unfortunate consequences. What might these be?
Re-entry at the lowest tier of league competition?
If club continuity is to be claimed, a revisiting of the LNS decision?
A coming clean by the SFA/SPL over how they gerrymandered their rules ‘for the good of the game’?
A realignment of the media to represent all Scottish clubs fairly?
Perhaps if these things were to happen then Rangers and their fans would find themselves at home again within the football family. It is not a capitulation by them; it is an accommodation that would help heal the rift that has grown over the last few years.
Recent events have utterly altered the outlook for those involved in the shenanigans. The situation has now become so unpredictable that no scenario planning is going to capture all the permutations. The only mechanism that can redress the situation is a return to ethical conduct and principled stances. Any other instruments adopted to attempt to navigate these troubled waters could easily see the entire sport run aground.
Its time for people of courage to make themselves known.
Lets be having you.
I have an image in my head of the lower-level-salary admin staff exiting Ibrox at one end and vast piles of money pouring out a huge waste pipe at the other. Corporate Britain, eh? Like being asked not to use the colour printer then waste an hour watching a presentation about your latest rebranding that will make no difference other than the contrasting shift in bank balances of both the company that created it and their client.
‘Murray hits out at King. Former Rangers owner Sir David on attack in cash row’ Tomorrow’s Herald front page (Twitter)
At last Lord Lucan surfaces! Will the intrepid hack from the Herald take this golden opportunity to grill the famous steel tycoon on his part in Rangers downfall? Or will he just be grateful to simply copy and paste the PR guff that Irvine has no doubt drafted on his client’s behalf?
Has the police activity over the last few days forced Murray to try and get his retaliation in first? Will we be hearing more from the duped knight of the realm in the coming weeks?
The people of Glasgow have a bill to pay
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/celtic-land-probe-cost-280000-x.25914095
The news that Dave King stands to potentially collect Ā£3 million from the liquidators seems to have taken a lot of people by surprise. It certainly had passed me by that he was a creditor.
From what i can see, his claim is not included in the Duff & Phelps report to creditors . In fact unless i have missed it , its not included in any of them . Initial, interim or final .
The claim though has now turned up I presume in the BDO report, I assume in the section that shows in excess of Ā£20 million is claimed by Directors.
Now a couple of things occur to me on reading this. Firstly , why is King any different to any other shareholder. Why should he be allowed to claim and Sammy the Mechanic not. At what point is the line drawn on claims. Normally equity is not protected in liquidations , at least as I understand it. Why then have BDO allowed Kings claim.
Or
Are they allowing it subject to a legal decision , and if so does that legal decision, if there is one , open the door for all shareholders to make a claim. King is claiming that he was not given full disclosure by Murray,and that Murray took decisions to benefit himself at the expense of other shareholders.
All of the above seems to be somewhat shrouded , however it seems to have touched a nerve with Murray who came out with a fairly routine denial today.
Secondly, and this is more interesting to those who believe King has been aiming at picking up the assets for next to nothing in another insolvency event.
Now based on the data in the final creditors report from Duff and Phelps the picture below is interetsing.
The unsecured creditors , who voted on the CVA were owed a collective total of Ā£55.415 Million. This amount did not include the big tax case. HMRC were owed a non contested Ā£14.372 Million . In percentage terms this equated to 25.93% , which was enough to reject the CVA.
However if Kings claim for Ā£20 million had been allowed by Duff & Phelps then the numbers are somewhat different . The amounts due to creditors would have been circa Ā£75.8 million with HMRC still having voting rights over Ā£14.372 million. This would have given them a percentage of under 19% , which wasn’t enough to cause the CVA to fail.
This raises a couple of questions . King is clearly a Rangers man. Why therefore did we hear no screaming and shouting about his claim not being allowed for CVA voting purposes.
If it had been allowed , he could have sided with almost everyone else, got the CVA accepted, no liquidation, no years in the wilderness, no journey from the very bottom of the Professional game in Scotland , and at worst only a one year European Ban ( i think )
Of course that would mean he wouldn’t be in control, and would have jeapordised his chances of picking up the assets at a later stage when the company was destined to fail due to revenues falling through the floor and costs not being addressed.
Did it suit King not to have a vote at the CVA with the opportunity to have his claim included later by liquidators. Could he have saved Rangers and chose not to do so, or was he denied any opportunity by Duff & Phelps and quietly ( unusually for him) and meekly accept this setback with good grace.
Now that he’s back to being garrulous maybe someone could ask him .
scottc says:
November 20, 2014 at 5:13 am
The people of Glasgow have a bill to pay
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/celtic-land-probe-cost-280000-x.25914095
====================================
This matter should be raised in the Scottish or Westminster Parliament. There has been a completely unnecessary cost to the public purse caused by people whose motives are publicly available all across the Internet.
upthehoops says:
November 20, 2014 at 7:17 am
0 0 Rate This
scottc says:
November 20, 2014 at 5:13 am
The people of Glasgow have a bill to pay
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/celtic-land-probe-cost-280000-x.25914095
====================================
Pursuing dreams at the taxpayers expense. Its the Rangers way š
Is it just me or do folk who turn up at the doors of Ibrox with empty pockets and hastily scribbled promissory notes think the T’Rangers board and shareholders are zipped up the back.
Once again we see that those who want control see the thing is a busted flush and want to protect their investment.
They also seem to want to gain some control over assets and dictate what happens to them without owning one single share in the company despite having two years to buy in on the open market a rock bottom prices.
Say what you like about Ashley but he owns shares and while it may be one sided his retail deal puts money into the club and has the ability to stump up the odd million (and has shown by action) at the drop of a hat when it is of mutual benefit.
Certainly not saying he is the great saviour but when you see what else is on offer why are others so surprised when their over complicated advances are dismissed?
upthehoops @ 7:17am
Particularly annoying as that money was earmarked for installing a couple of full-size indoor pitches at Lennoxtown.
BB
Apologies, not sure where you’re sourcing that info from. Is it possible the directors loans are entirely king, his mythical 20m that he always to be fair claimed he’d lost and the Ā£3m is his p in the pound expected settlement.
Interesting numbers indeed particularly if it changes the cva position.
So I’m a bad captain of very little brain, and it takes time for things to click, however it’s only now popped into my head that if the SFA have been keeping the non payment of the cardigan’s compensation quiet (if the Ā£400k has indeed not been paid) then are the directors of the SFA not in breach of their duties vis a vis the Companies Act?
Was it their duty to try to recover the money due from
RFC IL
Duff & Phelps
BDO
And lastly Sevco 5088 and or Sevco Scotland? (as the 5WA had football debts accepted as part of the stitch up.)
Therefore there has been at least four occasions when directors apparently took decisions to not chase their pals for monies due.
In additon if the monies have not been paid but have been implied as paid in their public pronouncements, then the cover up is as bad as the incident, and may also have implications for the accuracy of the SFAs annual accounts and auditors who signed them off.
Hmmm
In terms of the SFA governance arrangements despite the delegated committees etc involved my little brain thinks its likely to be the directors individually and collectively who are responsible for accurate reporting of the accounts etc for the companies act requirements.
What can be done to investigate and complain?
Oh yes via ignored correspondence with the football regulator as there is no regulator for football regulators.
Mr Black ā apparently a professional footballer player with The Rangers Football Club Ltd. ā and his words from Clyde 1 SSB last night. Showing just quite how far removed from the reality of the situation he, and I would suggest, the rest of the āfootballā staff areā¦.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzQpfWdVUfg&feature=youtu.be
Disgraceful and shameless….
bad capt madman says:
November 20, 2014 at 8:07 am
In terms of the SFA governance arrangements despite the delegated committees etc involved my little brain thinks its likely to be the directors individually and collectively who are responsible for accurate reporting of the accounts etc for the companies act requirements.
What can be done to investigate and complain?
Oh yes via ignored correspondence with the football regulator as there is no regulator for football regulators.
===========
I don’t think there is a companies act issue here. The SFA Board have a duty to the members, that is the 42 senior clubs. If a decision has been made by the Board not to pursue the Walter Smith compensation payment, then that is simply a matter between the Board and the clubs.
I would suggest that everyone should contact the club they support with the appropriate questions. In particular, those clubs who were represented on the SFA Board at the time the compensation was agreed should be able to clarify the position.
Best of luck getting meaningful answers, though. I predict the usual wall of silence.
Smugas says:
November 20, 2014 at 8:00 am
1 0 Rate This
BB
Apologies, not sure where youāre sourcing that info from. Is it possible the directors loans are entirely king, his mythical 20m that he always to be fair claimed heād lost and the Ā£3m is his p in the pound expected settlement.
Interesting numbers indeed particularly if it changes the cva position.
___________________________________
BBs info came from here
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/home-news/king-had-ample-opportunity-to-query-finances-claims-murray.25913874
SIR David Murray has criticised former Rangers director Dave King over his bid to claw back all of the Ā£20 million he invested in the club 14 years ago.
Mr King stands to gain at least Ā£3m as one of the main unsecured creditors of the club’s liquidated operating company.
The South Africa-based businessman says he intends to continue a legal challenge against the former Rangers owner over the investment. When Mr King ploughed the money into the club, a new share issue had been made to improve the playing squad and develop a strong youth policy through a new academy.
The claim comes amid allegations Mr King has made on the basis of non-disclosure by Sir David of Rangers’ true financial position in 2000.
Sir David said: “I don’t understand where he is coming from. There’s no foundation at all to it whatsoever, there’s been no financial information withheld from him. In all the times he was a director and I was chairman, he had every opportunity to participate in regular board meetings and when he wasn’t there he could have phoned in.
“He had the chance to approve annual audited accounts. He received the board papers always in South Africa, and he had all the detailed financial commercial information.
“He had every opportunity to either attend the board meetings or phone in with any questions. On not one occasion did he ever question anything. In the period of time I was chairman, there would have been 32 or 33 board meetings, all minuted, all detailed – and not one note of a complaint.”
Mr King’s claim places him third on the list of the biggest unsecured creditors of the liquidated RFC 2012 plc.
He could end up having an even greater slicer of the creditors’ cake if HMRC fail to convince courts that the oldco was liable for Ā£46.2m plus charges over the use of Employment Benefit Trust (EBT) loans to pay players and managers.
Liquidator BDO has confirmed that Ā£72m of the Ā£94.4m owed to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) relies on the outcome of the long-running dispute over the so-called big tax case. Its failure to win that would cut the debts owed from around Ā£160m to Ā£96.8m.
The first payouts to creditors are expected in the first quarter of 2015 after BDO confirmed that they have banked Ā£24m after settling a claim against Collyer Bristow, the solicitors involved in the calamitous takeover of the club by Craig Whyte.
Mr King’s share of the creditors’ payout could rise to about Ā£5.7m if HMRC fail to overturn the previous big tax case rulings that the EBTs were legal.
The 14-year-old rights issue involved Murray Sports, which was controlled by Mr Murray, taking up rights through its RFC Investment Holdings subsidiary to the tune of Ā£32.3m.
Of that, Ā£20m was described as new money from Mr King, invested through his Ben Nevis Holdings. As part of the changes Mr King became a non-executive director at Ibrox. Some of the new cash 14 years ago went towards lowering the club’s then Ā£40m debt.
Meanwhile, Mr King came under further fire yesterday from Sandy Easdale, chairman of Rangers International Football Club plc’s subsidiary football board, over his failed Ā£16m takeover offer. Mr Easdale said it had been “designed as a vehicle for self-promotion of some kind”.
Mr King had urged fans to boycott matches and stop buying official merchandise in a row with Rangers chairman David Somers over the bid’s rejection. Mr Easdale said the bid was never properly received as Mr King did not satisfy Mr Somers’ “reasonable and corporately responsible questions regarding proof of funds”.
East End Hammer says:
November 19, 2014 at 10:02 pm
81 0 Rate This
========================================================================
Such a fount of knowledge from DaveWHU1964…and on my own doorstep…!
Dave could certainly help out most, if not all of our SMSM churnalists/lambmunchers/stenographers.
Also – reg the DK 3 million claim….
TheTributeAct ā@TheTributeAct 13m13 minutes ago
@TheClumpany There is an entry in BDO’s list for Directors. Somehow he’s got on the creditors list after admin ended.
The Clumpany ā@TheClumpany 9m9 minutes ago
@TheTributeAct Cheers. Missed that!
Cheers exiled. That’s exactly what it would appear to be, kings Ā£20m listed as directors loans and the percentage settlement therein. That’s before BDO’s costs of course, and pending the BTC appeal.
So this mornings news is the two who could have blocked the cva (I assume we discount the BTC from the calculation) is king and the SFA had they chosen to.
Oops
scottc says:
November 20, 2014 at 5:13 am
6 0 Rate This
The people of Glasgow have a bill to pay
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/celtic-land-probe-cost-280000-x.25914095
===============================================================================
…and to think that Ecobhoy could have done all this for them for free, and from the comfort and convenience of his kitchen table…or the snug in the Griffin/Horsehoe/anyone’s local howff…!
On the herald piece.
160m take away 72m = 96m?
Secondly, Davie boy via BNH put 20m into Murray sports of a total of a (I think) 60m debt. Yet only Dave’s has been added to the creditors list?
There’s hard-hitting investigative reporting and there’s also pulled powder-puff punches. I’m afraid Gerry Braiden’s Herald piece doesn’t even meet the limp lettuce standard.
He tell’s us about the Ā£280K cost to Clasgow City Council to defend itself from a bunch of lunatics fuelled by fantasy and bitter sectarianism. Glasgow isn’t alone and East Dunbartonshire has also been in the front-line as have other councils.
The NHS in Scotland has also run-up a huge bill to defend the ludicrous allegations of corruption levelled at it by anonymous nutters hiding behind a web of interlinked twitter accounts. The number of local, state and other public bodies who have been dragged into this Walter Mitty world are simply too many to count.
Hundreds if not thousands of public servants, councillors, MPs, MSPs and independent companies and professionals have all been dragged through the muck by being named on social media often on no more evidence than they had a Timmy name. One of the main people named and blamed is actually a Church of Scotland Minister – this is how ridiculous this whole affair is.
The driving force behind it was comprised of a small bunch of Ulster Unionists & supporters and a fairly prominent member of UKIP Scotland. Both had their own agendas which had nothing to do with ensuring EC State Aid Rules were followed or that Rangers was saved. No this was just about stealing votes on one hand and naked sectarianism on the other.
But the biggest expense has been to the British taxpayer – yet again a victim of the Rangers philosophy that they are exempt from taxation. And that’s because the largest costs have been the costs to the EC of shredding the mountain of emails and dossiers sent to it. All this cost will be seen as a victory by the nutters who orchestrated this affair.
But the real cost here is all the innocent ‘victims’ named as corrupt because of their assumed religious affiliations and assumed support for Celtic because of a supposed religious link.
Why is the Glasgow Herald so squeamish about actually exposing what this story is all about instead of producing what can only be described as crap. A real journo would give their eye-teeth to expose this and the only mainstream one who made a real efort initially – Chris Mclaughlin – was obviously warned-off not by the nutters so much but from a realisation IMO that his bosses at BBC Scotland didn’t have the guts to take it further.
There’s a couple of things about the Herald story I simply cannot allow to pass without comment.
Firstly Mr Braiden states:
The EC has never even recognised the ‘complainers’ as interested parties under EC Rules from very very early on after the first complaint from a McMurdo Blog regular in the summer of 2013. By the Autumn of 2013 the complaint was going nowhere and the complainers knew so they came up with the wheeze that being a Rangers shareholder would make them an ‘interested party’.
I have made my position on that clear since January of this year and it has taken until now for the EC Eurocrats to reach that conclusion. I emailed them yesterday and will copy bits of the email later as I think the EC have been very remiss in allowing the delay and increasing costs to the public purse.
There simply isn’t a shred of evidence that Celtic broke any of the State Aid Regulations and that’s because they followed the EC Rules to ensure they paid ‘market value’ for their land purchases.
Mr Braiden adds:
WRONG! Any club within the EEC and EFTA areas can lodge a complaint against Celtic. In case you have forgotten Gerry – Celtic regularly play in Europe and if they have received illegal State Aid it would provide them with an unfair competitive advantage. Don’t believe what lawyers tell you Gerry without DYOR. It will save you looking stoopit.
And then Mr Braiden comments:
Well any person with two brain cells knows the claim was deluded. However you seemed to have missed the basis for the illegal State Aid allegations which was that Celtic purchased public land below the ‘market value’ as required by the EC.
There’s nothing wrong – as could be implied from your comment – about GCC selling land valued at more than Ā£750,000 to Celtic unless Celtic paid significantly below the market value. So what did Celtic pay Gerry? I really don’t think you have even grasped the basics of this case and if the Herald still had any professionals reading it they would be having a good laugh today.
Well except those smeared by the State Aid nutters.
Sorry, still getting my head around the other herald piece (thanks for posting exiled).
If DK provides director loans (in fact can they be directors loans if he does it through an investment vehicle like Ben Nevis?) to Murray sports and Murray sports then invest it in RFC, how can DK get his loan listed against RFC directly? Surely it’s either the entire investment (32.3m?) or nothing?
And if you had the most remotest of remote chances of warding off the cva rejection, Shirley you would take it, or did the spectre of the BTC scare everyone away.
Neepheid, the SFA (SC005453) directors have the same duty of care to that company as those of any other company. The IOD guidance for directors includes:
You’re right though, the members should be asking.
Just in case they need to know, the directors are:
Mr Robert Campbell Ogilvie
Mr Alan Mcrae
Mr Stewart Michael Regan
Mr Barrie Mason Jackson
Heather-Anne Barton
Mr Peter Thomas Lawwell
Mr Thomas Alexander Johnston
Mr Roderick Mckenzie Petrie
Did Mr King not come out and say the creditors should Reject a CVA
So if my memory serves me correctly then he would have voted along side HMRC
I don’t get why BDO are allowing King to claim that he is a creditor of RFC 2012 (IL). He didn’t invest in RFC, but in Murray Sports. If he has a claim it should be against Murray Sports, which just happens to have been dissolved in April 2013.
BDO should disallow the claim which would increase the return for the other real creditors.
Murray Sports may well have held shares in RFC, but it was part of the MIH group and he could seek recompense there and join the queue behind Lloyds.
It just demonstrates once again that King is just another bottom feeding spiv (copyright Goosyx2)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18360427
twopanda says:
November 20, 2014 at 9:30 am
1 0 Rate This
//////////////////////
Thanks twopanda
Knew my memory wasn’t failing me yet š
Don’t have a lot to remember so plenty of room up there for th minor stuff š
I have undernoted some of an email I sent yesterday to the EC in view of the ‘State Aiders’ decision to waste more taxpayers’ money by appealing against the EC Decision to junk their ramblings.
I hope sensible Bears will waken-up and recognise the diversion being operated by this small sect intent on diverting attention away from what is happening at Ibrox.
It’s possible Rangers can’t be saved I simply don’t know the answer to that. But what I do know is it won’t be saved if Bears are lead-up a cul-de-sac by fantasists and squander their energies on moonbeams.
That will only help those intent on ripping-off Rangers and enjoying their anonymous overseas luxury on a tax haven.
had a quick squint back to the administrators final report.
No mention of directors loans per ‘theclumpany’ the tweet above. They do confirm that they accepted HMRC’s total claim of 96m ish for voting rights i.e. including the BTC.
So in terms of a timely rejecting of the CVA (and that’s an interesting BBC piece TP) we’re back to just how helpful Murray and King’s RFC were being to HMRC to get the thing sorted out.
And again I find myself thinking Ooops!
No-one to blame but themselves.
Extract from Rangers Accounts in 2000
twopanda says:
November 20, 2014 at 9:30 am
3 3 Rate This
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18360427
//////////////////////////////////////
liked this little statement from CG
“I would question Mr King’s motives in urging the rejection of the CVA proposal which is the best offer available to creditors.
“If the CVA is rejected then the club will be acquired on a newco basis which will not benefit creditors, nor will it benefit the club in terms of participation in Europe.
kind of puts a certain myth to bed š
blu says:
November 20, 2014 at 9:21 am
Neepheid, the SFA (SC005453) directors have the same duty of care to that company as those of any other company. The IOD guidance for directors includes:
==================
Yes, of course they do, but if the Directors decide to write off an item of income, or simply not pursue it, as a matter of “policy”, then that is something they have the power to do. The companies act does not oblige the directors to pursue any individual debt. If the SFA (via Regan) negotiated a sum with RFC, but then later the Board decided that it was not in their members’ interests to collect such a sum, then the Directors could simply revise the compensation figure to zero. If the revision to zero and the original agreement fell within the same accounting period, then what would the accounts have to show? In my opinion, the transactions would not appear in the published accounts, if it was done in the way I suggest. However I have absolutely no knowledge of the matter, and I am of course making no allegations.
Only the SFA Board can provide definitive answers. They need to be asked for clarification. After all, didn’t Regan promise us transparency when appointed?
Neepheid, I think you’ve made a fair stab at some of the tortured logic that would be required not to collect monies due and your point about the lack of transparency is what bad capt madman was unhappy about. I think he’s right to pursue it and the directors and members should account for it.
Taken from the DR copy and paste effort at an ‘Exclusive’?
Regarding Sir David Murray –
“…King, a former director at Ibrox, is third on the list of biggest unsecured creditors of the clubās liquidated operating company RFC 2012 plc…”
Was it not “Wavetower” or “The Rangers Group”
Which was the Operating Company (Holding Company) for
Rangers Football Club ltd ???
( and this company is still in existance?)
GoosyGoosy says:
November 19, 2014 at 8:14 pm
ecobhoy says:
November 19, 2014 at 5:42 pm
GoosyGoosy says:
November 19, 2014 at 2:52 pm
Liquidation may trigger the revelation that the IP rights of RFC are not part of the assets of TRFC and never have been because these IP rights belong to Green. TRFC are only able to use them as long as Green permits them to do so.
========================================
The problem I have with this is that all bar one of the traditional Rangersā trade marks, I am aware of, are registered in the UK official government trade mark register as being owned by TRFCL with Rangers Retail Ltd ā the joint venture company between Rangers and Sportsdirect ā holding an exclusive licence for their use.
OK it could be argued that this is some kind of sleight of hand but all of the trade marks have an IPO agent in place whose name and address is given as well as a licence representative who is similarly identified.
I would imagine that both of these would have some kind of responsibility to ensure the trade mark register details are accurate
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Understand the point you make. Where I am coming from is this: There was nothing to stop Green from defining IP in terms that allowed āhistoryā to become a standalone element which he then bought. He could then āpermitā TRFC to use the history only with his written agreement.
A similar ploy could have been done with Trademarks under which they can be registered as owned by TRFC but cannot be used commrcially without written permission from Green
===================================================
That raises the question of possible failure to fully disclose in the Rangers AIM Prospectus (December 2012) wrt to a possible undisclosed interest by Green the chief executive and major shareholder.
It also raises the question as to who Green’s ‘permission’ would require to be given to. Is it TRFCL or Rangers Retail Ltd. I would think it more likely to be TRFCL which would mean that Ashley wasn’t aware of any strictures in the trade mark ownership.
However as DEREK LLAMBIAS was appointed as a director of TRFCL on 18/11/2014 he can easily have a peek under the boor lid or wheel arches and discover on what basis TRFCL hold ‘ownership’ of the Rangers trade marks or even other IP rights.
After all one would imagine something as important as that must be minuted somewhere in the company paperwork. Wouldn’t it ā
wottpi says:
November 20, 2014 at 7:40 am
Say what you like about Ashley but he owns shares and while it may be one sided his retail deal puts money into the club and has the ability to stump up the odd million (and has shown by action) at the drop of a hat when it is of mutual benefit.
=====================================================================
Well I can’t remember what Ashley paid for his shares off the top of my head but I doubt it was 70p a time.
But I think any balanced opinion of what Ashley brings to the Ibrox coffers should be delayed a bit to see how it compares to the JJB deal.
That deal was all but derided in the Rangers AIM Prospectus which trumpeted that a major aim of the new Plc was to bring the club retailings activities back under Rangers’ control. Well that lasted a long time didn’t it – in fact IMO it never actually happened š
Looking at what the club has recently earned from branded merchandise sales the JJB deal is starting to look like the Deal of the Century IMO.
So as I say I will reserve judgement on what Ashley brings to the club until I see what income is generated. I would have thought with his abilities he could easily surpass what JJB managed. We shall see.
You have to hand it to old Richard Wilson at the BBC. On his most recent article talking of Kennedy’s nine point offer of a loan to RIFCL he comes along with this nugget….
“The Sale Sharks owner initially sought a nominal 3% interest on the loan but made it clear that this could have been negotiated to zero.” Really, Richard????
Wilson should have this as an exclusive since nobody else seems to know of Kennedy’s potential generosity.
Really, just where do these guys go that allows them to make up such nonsense and surely, surely, somewhere an editor needs to ask….what the hell is this all about and what are your sources other than the tooth fairy?
jimmci says:
November 20, 2014 at 10:54 am
You have to hand it to old Richard Wilson at the BBC. On his most recent article talking of Kennedyās nine point offer of a loan to RIFCL he comes along with this nuggetā¦.
āThe Sale Sharks owner initially sought a nominal 3% interest on the loan but made it clear that this could have been negotiated to zero.ā Really, Richard????
======================================================================
I have watched most journos involved in this saga pretty closely over the last few years.
I have to say that Richard Wilson is one of the very few who has consistently covered the story with different angles to the succulent lamb efforts regurgitated by the vast majority of his SMSM colleagues.
Basically I trust his output but like every journo he gets it wrong although I tend to think these are genuine mistakes rather than an attempt to deceive and promote a PR agenda.
I think since he moved from The Herald to the BBC that he has been more constrained in his reporting but that is more to do with the culture at BBC Scotland
Just for the record: I’m not related to him; have never met him; and have never spoken to him.
I also happen to believe that Kennedy is a much more straightforward and honest character than most of the other players so let’s see if Somers calls him out as a liar.
Sky Sports News HQ ā@SkySportsNewsHQ 10m10 minutes ago
BREAKING NEWS: Arrest warrant for Craig Whyte issued by high court judge.
Bryan Swanson ā@skysports_bryan 9m9 minutes ago
High Court hearing in London relates to Ticketus. Separate to ongoing Police Scotland investigation into club’s takeover in 2011
jimlarkin says:
November 20, 2014 at 10:16 am
Notwithstanding the inaccuracy of the statement you quoted, Jim, the phrase “the clubās liquidated operating company” has to be the finest example of linguistical gymnastics I’ve seen so far. The stenographers really are struggling to find original ways of rewriting history. Pathetic, really pathetic.
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11788/9571000/scottish-football-a-judge-has-issued-an-arrest-warrant-for-craig-whyte?
“… a decade of litigation to unravel”
Sounds about right, as Laxely consider their options, and resolve not a penny more according to the latest from Phil.
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/not-a-penny-more/#more-5328
I predict an upturn in the sale of popcorn machines at this rate š
ecobhoy says: November 20, 2014 at 10:52 am
Well I canāt remember what Ashley paid for his shares off the top of my head but I doubt it was 70p a time.
========================
Ashley’s share purchases:
1,500,000 @ 99p
1,500,000 @ 1p
4,265,000 @ 20p
Averages out at approx 32.4p a share for a total investment of Ā£2.353M
Mike Ashley has had a wee look and things aren’t quite as he expected, as I understand it.
Did anyone, ever, determine who actually owns Ibrox and/or Murray Park? I seem to recall the IPO prospectus having to use some pretty tortuous language to explain that this wasn’t clear?
And with the news that Laxey Partners are not putting another penny in, it would seem clear that Mr Ashley is firmly in the driving seat; put Ā£12m in to satisfy going concern OR push the admin/liquidation button.
Of course this gives him HUGE leverage over those holding the Onerous Contracts, and/or IP rights for everything ‘Rangers’ in a commercial/branding context.
Fascinating times š
Regarding Phil’s latest article: http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/not-a-penny-more/#more-5328
I am assuming that any proceeds from the sale of the 3 assets from the footballing side that have been identified will have to go into the day-to-day operational running costs of the club. As it sounds that the Hedge fund are not prepared to put any more money into the company/club.
Unless tens of millions can be found to be pumped into the footballing side of the club – I do not see how this ends well, without a reset i.e. starting again (I know) but this time properly.
scapaflow says:
November 20, 2014 at 12:36 pm
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/not-a-penny-more/#more-5328
I predict an upturn in the sale of popcorn machines at this rate š
================================================================
I predict the smart spivs will be switching their money out of Rangers and investing in Popcorn Futures šÆ
The last two sentences of Phil’s article http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/not-a-penny-more/#more-5328 in my opinion are worthy of further debate.
If Laxey’s have sought legal advice over the IPO from their legal advisors – are they now worried over the legality over the IPO?
In terms of the last sentence, which notes that a decade of litigation may be required to unravel [the situation] – this suggests serious problems for the shares.
If Laxey’s have a doubt over the IPO are they duty or legally bound to inform the market in any way?
“Of course this gives him HUGE leverage over those holding the Onerous Contracts, and/or IP rights for everything āRangersā in a commercial/branding context.”
Yes & No, I think. The people who set all this up, are many things, stupid they are not. I suspect they would know that the edifice was unstable, and would collapse sooner or later. They have made a good return, on what was a fairly small investment, and the Kennedy statement hints at more unpleasant surprises to come.
Essexbeancounter
We should borrow a page or two from the Icelandic play book:
“RT ā@RT_com 45m45 minutes ago
Former head of Icelandās Landsbanki jailed 12 months for role in 2008 crash http://on.rt.com/2exu4e “
easyJambo says:
November 20, 2014 at 12:47 pm
5 0 Rate This
ecobhoy says: November 20, 2014 at 10:52 am
Well I canāt remember what Ashley paid for his shares off the top of my head but I doubt it was 70p a time.
========================
Ashleyās share purchases:
1,500,000 @ 99p
1,500,000 @ 1p
4,265,000 @ 20p
Averages out at approx 32.4p a share for a total investment of Ā£2.353M
——–
Seen against his takings thus far in form of sales and assets acquired, MA must be up on the deal.
And what a pitiful amount compared to what fans have actually pumped into the enterprise.
highfibre says:
November 20, 2014 at 1:38 pm
An operating company is one which carries out some kind of day to day operations, such as running a football club.
A holding company is one which has no day to day operations, but is merely a vehicle for the ownership of other companies or assets.
Curiously both The Rangers Football Club Limited and Rangers International Football Club are operating companies ā there is no holding company in the current set-up.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
So, if there’s no holding company, The Rangers International Football Club’s day to day operation is running The Rangers Football Club Limited, whose day to day operation is running The Rangers Football Club Limited.
Right?
Why don’t they just amalgamate into Smoke & Mirrors PLC and be done with it!
The Rangers nil? Who missed the penalty? says:
November 20, 2014 at 2:21 pm
Not sure if i am right but wasn’t the Old Club “THe Rangers football Club PLC” so they could not use “The Rangers Football Club ltd” for the IPO as that would have been a Phoenix Company so illegal or Prohibited
ecobhoy says:
November 20, 2014 at 10:33 am
GoosyGoosy says:
November 19, 2014 at 2:52 pm
Understand the point you make. Where I am coming from is this: There was nothing to stop Green from defining IP in terms that allowed āhistoryā to become a standalone element which he then bought. He could then āpermitā TRFC to use the history only with his written agreement.
A similar ploy could have been done with Trademarks under which they can be registered as owned by TRFC but cannot be used commercially without written permission from Green
===================================================
That raises the question of possible failure to fully disclose in the Rangers AIM Prospectus (December 2012) wrt to a possible undisclosed interest by Green the chief executive and major shareholder.
It also raises the question as to who Greenās āpermissionā would require to be given to. Is it TRFCL or Rangers Retail Ltd. I would think it more likely to be TRFCL which would mean that Ashley wasnāt aware of any strictures in the trade mark ownership.
However as DEREK LLAMBIAS was appointed as a director of TRFCL on 18/11/2014 he can easily have a peek under the boor lid or wheel arches and discover on what basis TRFCL hold āownershipā of the Rangers trade marks or even other IP rights.
After all one would imagine something as important as that must be minuted somewhere in the company paperwork. Wouldnāt it:?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Yes it would have to be minuted by TRFC but that does not mean it is still available for LLambias to view
It could be something like the following
The TRFC copy of the minute is ālostā but there is a record on TRFC files of a meeting being arranged on that date
Perhaps the relevant minute is repeatedly referred to in subsequent correspondence without the actual minute being available. Green claims he has a copy and can evidence correspondence between him and TRFC where his permission is sought and granted
If pressed to hand over a copy Green could simply refuse and offer to provide a legal opinion on its authenticity from a person of authority
The kernel of it all is whether or not the TRFC files on IP deals since Green arrived include a āside letterā in which Green assents to a request from TRFC for permission to proceed
highfibre says:
November 20, 2014 at 1:38 pm
An operating company is one which carries out some kind of day to day operations, such as running a football club.
A holding company is one which has no day to day operations, but is merely a vehicle for the ownership of other companies or assets.
Curiously both The Rangers Football Club Limited and Rangers International Football Club are operating companies ā there is no holding company in the current set-up.
================
I don’t understand that. RIFC seems to me to be just a holding company- all it owns is the shares in TRFC. So far as I know, it has no business activities apart from that. Can you clarify, please?
easyJambo says:
November 20, 2014 at 12:47 pm
5 0 Rate This
ecobhoy says: November 20, 2014 at 10:52 am
Well I canāt remember what Ashley paid for his shares off the top of my head but I doubt it was 70p a time.
========================
Ashleyās share purchases:
1,500,000 @ 99p
1,500,000 @ 1p
4,265,000 @ 20p
Averages out at approx 32.4p a share for a total investment of Ā£2.353M
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And there you have it .
Add in the Ā£3m loan and you get to control,the club for around Ā£5.5m – the same price Charles of Normandy brokered in 2012.
So for any real Rangers men a wee stretch at any time to Ā£6m would have seen the club in ‘safe’ hands.
Of course they know that it is not that simple as the thing is still a busted flush if you are really concerned about holding onto your children’s inheritance.
Ashley on the other hand can afford to take a punt at this and walk away if it suits.
Ecobhoy 9.47
When it comes to share holders taking legal action I’ll buy a pint of advice.
Maybe two. āŗ
Neepheid
High fibre
Can you go back to my post yesterday when I quoted Art12 of UEFA FFP that defines a football club.
Since then I’ve seen references to RIFC being the operating club (IPO?) and my point is where MIH or Lawrence Builders before them ever fully responsible for RFC in operating terms?
It’s a nonsense construct in Scotland that goes totally against the full intent of Article 12 and it is an issue that should be addressed to UEFA as it undermines their fair play principles.
The_Pie_Man says:
November 20, 2014 at 2:31 pm
0
0
Rate This
The Rangers nil? Who missed the penalty? says:
November 20, 2014 at 2:21 pm
Not sure if i am right but wasnāt the Old Club āTHe Rangers football Club PLCā so they could not use āThe Rangers Football Club ltdā for the IPO as that would have been a Phoenix Company so illegal or Prohibited
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Pie Man
See the late and sadly missed Paul McConville’s “Fun With Forms…” piece at
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/fun-with-forms-could-sevcos-change-of-name-to-rangers-be-invalid/
neepheid says: November 20, 2014 at 2:43 pm
highfibre says: November 20, 2014 at 1:38 pm
============================
It’s normal to find some statement in a football parent company accounts to say that its sole or primary purpose is to run a football club. I can’t find any such statement in the RIFC accounts, but there are a couple of references that imply it.
BUSINESS REVIEW
As the Company and its principal subsidiaries are managed and controlled as a single entity, the review of business and future developments, which is set out in the Business Review on pages 3 to 15, reflects the performance of the Group. A separate review of the Company would not be meaningful and is therefore not presented.
also
Note 26 The parent company is exempt from disclosing a company-only income statement. Its loss for the period was Ā£332,000.
————————
Celtic PLC similarly provides statements:
THE BUSINESS REVIEW
The principal activity of the Group is the operation of a professional football club, with related and ancillary activities. The principal activity of the Company is to control and manage the main assets of the business whilst the majority of operating activity is carried out by a subsidiary, Celtic FC Limited. As a result, both of these companies are managed and controlled as a single entity in order to achieve the objectives of the Group.
Subsidiaries
The Companyās wholly owned subsidiary undertaking continues to be Celtic FC Limited, the main activity of which is the operation of a professional football club.
In turn, Celtic FC Limited holds 100% of the issued ordinary share capital in each of the following companies:
Subsidiary undertaking – Activity
Protectevent Limited – Dormant
Glasgow Eastern Developments Limited – Management of properties
The Celtic Football and Athletic Company Limited – Football club management & promotional services
These companies are registered in Scotland and are all included in the consolidated financial statements.
neepheid says:
November 20, 2014 at 9:59 am
blu says:
November 20, 2014 at 9:21 am
Neepheid, the SFA (SC005453) directors have the same duty of care to that company as those of any other company. The IOD guidance for directors includes:
==================
Yes, of course they do, but if the Directors decide to write off an item of income, or simply not pursue it, as a matter of āpolicyā, then that is something they have the power to do…
==================
Absolutely.
Except both Darryl Broadfoot and his colleague Mark Snell separately confirmed – in writing – that the SFA DID receive the compensation.
I have the emails. š
StevieBC says:
November 20, 2014 at 3:23 pm
Except both Darryl Broadfoot and his colleague Mark Snell separately confirmed ā in writing ā that the SFA DID receive the compensation.
I have the emails. š
============
They might have received it, but then Ogilvie told them to send it back- or is that me being far too cynical?
And you’ll be clear about the quantum? And we soon will be too?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30134269
More verbal warfare š š
From Dave Kings piece talking about Sandy Easdale today:
“He indicated that Mike Ashley would look after him if he assisted Ashley in protecting his commercial rights. The new investment proposed by Paul [Murray], George [Letham] and I was seen as a threat to Sports Direct’s desire to extend its influence over the Rangers brand in all its forms.
Were Paul Murray and George Letham involved in 2 of the 3 consortiums? I am sure they were named as part of the sale sharks guys mob as well.
Carfins Finest says: November 20, 2014 at 3:33 pm
Were Paul Murray and George Letham involved in 2 of the 3 consortiums? I am sure they were named as part of the sale sharks guys mob as well.
===========================
Last night’s statement from Kennedy alluded to the fact that his funding was only to allow time for the King deal to be agreed and implemented.
There were in effect only two offers: Ashley and King(+ or – Kennedy’s emergency funding)
Thanks EJ.
Following on from my post this morning
http://www.tsfm.scot/a-spectre-is-haunting-scottish-football/comment-page-9/#comment-35558
This has generated a blizzard of discussion on twitter . 3 questions in particular need answering.
1 King was an investor in Murray Sports. He is claiming deception by Murray. Why is his equity investment deemed by BDO to be different to all other shareholders
2 King was quoted on March 7 2012
“My own present position- I seem to be one of the few people who actually invested cash into the club. I have made a claim of GBP 20 million on the basis of non-disclosure by the then Chairman, David Murray, of Rangers true financial position as far back as 2000. Other shareholders may feel deceived like I do and wish to take similar action. (David Murray will no doubt argue to the contrary and the merits of this will be dealt with in due course in the appropriate forum.) For present purposes however, I simply want to advise the fans and fellow shareholders that any benefit I receive from my claim will be fully reinvested into the restructured football club. I remain 100% committed to the Rangers football club and will do whatever I can to advance its interests”
The claim therefore was made in plenty of time to be included in the initial list of creditors provided by Duff & Phelps. Did King actually lodge the claim as he stated he did ?
3 On the assumption King was being honest on March 7 2012, when he stated he had made a claim, why did D & P not include this in the creditors list. Why in turn did King not demand it’s inclusion as it could have ensured the success of the CVA. What did King do to persuade BDO that his claim was valid and did he attempt to do the same with D&P . If not, why not
The liquidation of Rangers in 2012 and the potential liquidation of RIFC could be seen as essential to Kings personal ambitions to own “Rangers ” at some stage. If he could have saved the CVA and refused because of personal ambition , how will that be viewed by Rangers supporters. On the other hand if he was denied by D&P shouldn’t he be making that clear.
Auldheid, I had a look at your posts yesterday, and this caught my attention
This puzzles me. TRFC is a legal entity, a limited company. All the evidence I have seen indicates that it operates the football club. They hold the SFA membership, hold the player registrations, take the money coming in, hold the bank account, pay the VAT and PAYE. So far as I have seen, RIFC does nothing except hold the shares in TRFC. So TRFC is the operating company, and RIFC is a holding company, which has no business, but just holds shares.
This is based on my understanding of UK tax and company law, of course, but I really can’t see how RIFC could be designated an operating company, since TRFC is clearly operating the business from day to day. Any legal consequences arising from a failure of the business (H&S issues, failures of governance, etc) will ultimately fall on the TRFC Board, not the directors of RIFC.
Jack Irvine responds to Dave King’s latest statement
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B25j5EoCEAATMT_.jpg
GoosyGoosy says:
November 20, 2014 at 2:38 pm
========================================
If you look at the IPO Register you will see that all existing Rangers trade marks pre-date administration in February 2012 and the previous owner was The Rangers Football Club Plc.
On 14 June 2012 the ownership was transferred to Sevco Scotland Ltd and on 29 August 2012 JJB Sports was removed as Licencee from the Register although the form was received by IPO on 2 July 2012.( There often appears to be quite long time lags between paperwork being submitted and actioned by appearing on Register.
The licence to use was transferred to Rangers Retail Ltd on 31 July 2012.
When the trade mark ownership was transferred to Sevco Scotland Ltd on 14 June 2012 the directors of Sevco Scotland were Green, Stockbridge, Ahmad and Murray.
However Green was the sole director from 29 May until 13 June 2012. He was also the subscriber shareholder.
Now knowing what we do about GG I’m sure if he took any important decisions as sole director and shareholder of Sevco Scotland then I’m sure it will be noted in company records and also approved at the first Board meeting of the 4 directors from 14 June onwards.
I raised some issues about Sevco Scotland back in August 2012 at: http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/the-many-mysteries-of-the-rangers-fc-shareholding-by-ecojon/
easyJambo says:
November 20, 2014 at 5:32 pm
Jack Irvine responds to Dave Kingās latest statement
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B25j5EoCEAATMT_.jpg
===================================================
The gloves are off! Fight ā Fight ā Fight ā
Phil MacGiollaBhain ā@Pmacgiollabhain 12m12 minutes ago
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-great-british-fake-off/#more-5337 ā¦
Two-for-one deals might entice the regulars, but the fare on offer is, I am told, very poor.
ecobhoy, it’s a bar fight, everyone’s gonny start ‘throwing punches’ at anyone! No sides, last man ‘standing’ might win.
Holy cow Batman, even Murrays up!
Remember and leave a flask of soup in your sheds tonight, just incase Craig Boys about!
I’m loving the subservient comment. Somebody’s erchie has fairly fallen out of his RFC breeks!